Pages

Thursday, May 24, 2012

The
Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan is a comprehensive political, social,
economic, and military account of the great war between Sparta and Athens. For
those interested in these types of histories, as well as the history and
culture of ancient Greece, this book will be an engrossing experience. Kagan a Sterling
Professor of Classics and History at Yale University has also published a
massive four - volume history of the conflict aimed at serious scholars. This
is his one volume “condensed” version that is in itself extremely detailed.

The
Peloponnesian War was actually a series of conflicts. Athens was a direct
democracy; that is, all free males who were citizens voted on almost every
public decision. Athens was the center of a powerful, wealthy, but often oppressive
maritime empire.

While
Sparta is often described as a military dictatorship, Kagan points out it was
really a mixed system that was part monarchy, part aristocracy, and part democracy.
Sparta was famous for its highly militaristic system that imposed harsh martial
training on all male citizens.

For
nearly thirty years the two states waged an on again and off again war upon
each other and as well as on allied states. The struggle encompassed an area
that stretched from the coast of modern day Turkey and the Black Sea in the
east, to Sicily in the west. The wars involved dozens of city-states as well as
the Persian Empire. It was characterized by both land and sea battles. The
conflicts finally ended with the surrender of Athens in 404 BC.

The
ancient Greeks played an integral part in the shaping of the modern world. This
conflict played an immensely important part in shaping the world of Ancient
Greece. I think that Kalgan gets it about right when he compares the impact of
this clash on Ancient Greece to the impact that the First World War had upon twentieth
century Western Civilization. Therefore, the Peloponnesian War is well worth
studying for those who wish to obtain a clearer understanding of the world.

There
is so much one can talk about here. I want to focus on only one of a multitude
of facets to this conflict, what is known as the “Sicilian Expedition”. This
campaign and its consequences can teach us some important lessons relevant to
our modern world. In 422 BC Athens and Sparta had actually been at peace, but
in a state of “cold war” for about seven years. In that year the Athenians decided
to launch a major invasion of the island of Sicily. The expedition involved an
enormous number of ships and soldiers and was exceedingly expensive. Athens
expected an easy victory. After two years of fighting against various Sicilian city-states
led by Syracuse, as well as a Spartan expeditionary force, the Athenian army
was surrounded and annihilated. Her enormous fleet was bottled up in a harbor
and sunk. Most of the Athenian military leadership was killed in the campaign
and the democracy was nearly bankrupted.

The Sicilian
calamity was the beginning of the end for Athens. Much of its empire subsequently
rebelled, Sparta attacked on land and sea, and civil strife gripped the city
resulting in the temporarily overthrow of the democracy. While the war
continued for another ten years, Kalgan convincingly argues that had these
losses in Sicily not occurred, the total defeat of Athens would likely never
have happened. It seems to me that the war between the Sparta and Athens may
never even have reignited, and if it had, it is likely that Athens would have
defeated Sparta.

Why
did Athens launch such as ill-conceived mission? First, the conquest of Sicily
would have provided the Athenians with a strategic advantage over Sparta,
cutting off much of the Sparta’s foreign trade. Second, the addition of Sicily
to the Athenian empire would have bestowed increased power and wealth upon
Athens. Finally, Kagan’s description of the Athenians’ deliberations leading up
to the expedition indicates a certain level of arrogance and overconfidence as
to the prospects for success. At the time Athens was brimming with wealth derived
from its empire. The city-state was mistress of the seas, and in possession of
an enormous navy that had previously won battle after battle against its
enemies. To many Athenians, the easy conquest of Sicily was a given.

Before
we draw parallels with other historical events it is important to point out
that while comparative history can be useful and enlightening such judgments
have their limits. Kagan compares the Athenian calamity in Sicily to the Franco
– British Gallipoli Campaign as well as to America’s involvement in Vietnam.
While I believe there are parallels with those actions, in terms of the scope
of military defeat and the ensuing destruction of empire, the Sicilian Campaign
was closer to Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet
Union. Again, the similarities only go so far, as those cases did not involve democracies
launching invasions over the maritime distances.

Most
recently, America’s invasion of Iraq comes to mind. That poorly conceived
venture was also planned with both strategic and economic advantage as goals.
As an American I can personally attest to the overconfident and arrogant attitudes,
as well as the uncritical beliefs in America’s power, expressed by many of my
fellow citizens leading up to the war. Of course, like the Athenian experience
in Sicily, the military campaign did not go nearly as successfully as planned,
and ultimately weakened the United States both strategically and economically.

All foreign
military involvements cannot be considered as mistakes however. For instance,
America’s intervention in World War II can be characterized as a foreign
intervention (America had a foot as well as leg in the game well before Pearl
Harbor). Yet, that historical intervention can be seen as moral, necessary and successful.

Nevertheless,
modern states would do well to consider both the morality and unforeseen
outcomes that result from these ventures. History abounds with other examples
of democracies intervening militarily, over vast oceans, which were both
justified and beneficial. The trick is to figure out which ones are worth the
risk and the cost as well as meeting a moral litmus test. If careful and
thoughtful deliberations with less arrogance had occurred prior to some of the
events outlined above, many terrible and unfortunate events likely would not
have occurred.

On a
side note, I cannot neglect to mention that strangely enough, Kagan was one of
the leaders Project for the New American
Century. Project for the New American
Century was the conservative think tank that provided the intellectual force
and the theories behind the America’s invasion of Iraq and the Bush
administrations aggressive military policies. Thus, I suspect that Kagan would
cringe at parts of my commentary. His politics not withstanding, the author has
written a fine work of history in The
Peloponnesian War.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

I
recently wroteabout some of my thoughts on David Benatar’s Better
Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. While this book was
not the beginning of my thinking about the big picture for mankind, I have been
pondering this subject since childhood, reading Benatar did prompt me to
organize some of my thoughts on the matter. The big question for me is should,
or do I care, if the human race continues. Does it really matter whether or not
people become extinct? To some this may seem like a ludicrous question, but to
adventurous thinkers this inquiry is fair game.

At
times I must admit, when I observe and think about all the mass and individual murders,
the torture, rape, petty greed, oppression, narrow mindedness as well as a
thousand other ills that mankind has heaped upon itself and other forms of
life, both throughout history and into the present, I am tempted to say that
the Universe would be better off without people. At the very least, perhaps I
should be ambivalent about the future of our species.

It
turns out that this train of reasoning is only a temptation for me. When I
think about how I have pondered these concepts over the years, I do not believe
that I ever really settled on such a view. Why have I not done so? Of course in
the short run there are many people and animals that I love and care about. I
want them to keep going for as long as possible. After eighty to a hundred
years however, baring enormous strides in medical technology and our ability to
access these advances, all of these creatures that I am attached to will be
gone.

So
why care about the long term? I see absolutely no evidence that there exists
anything like a benevolent or caring Supreme Being. If such an entity does
exist, it still does not logically follow that I should be concerned with
future people. It would then the Deity’s concern! Of course, I do not want
future people to suffer or die, as Benatar points out, one can be opposed to
the potential suffering of future, unborn humans, while being indifferent or
even against their coming into existence in the first place.

It
turns out that I do care very much. First I need to point out that while my thoughts
and opinions are my own, perhaps the biggest influencer in regards to the way
that I think about the Universe and humanity’s place in it is the late great scientist-philosopher
Carl Sagan. In his numerous books and television programs, Sagan paints a
picture of the Cosmos that has influenced and often parallels my views.

We
know that the Universe, at least in local areas, has organized itself. Dust
clouds formed planets and stars. Inside the nuclear interior of suns, complex
elements formed. On at least one planet, these complex elements formed chemicals
that have organized to become genes, then cells, then more complex organisms.
One line of these evolutionary branches evolved into Homo sapiens, an animal
with astounding brainpower. We humans proceeded to use these brains in ever
more complex and interesting ways. We have developed language, culture and
civilization. Eventually we began to understand science and develop technology.
These advances have taken us into astounding territory. Such wondrous things
are being discovered! Perhaps the most significant of which relates to understanding
the fundamentals laws and facts that govern our Universe, biology, and even our
own brains.

The
fact is undeniable, the Universe is conscious! It has organized itself over the
eons into these little bundles of extremely dense, intelligent and self-aware structures
called people! As Sagan said on many occasions, “We are star stuff”. The
elements produced inside of stars are what make up our bodies and hence our
minds. We are conglomerations of energy and matter that has built up and formed
itself over billions of years, first through stellar synthesis, planetary
formation, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, and finally human culture, reason
and technology. We ARE the Universe, or at least part of it. We are groupings
of matter and energy that are a part of a Universe that has become conscious.
Though people, the Universe is beginning to know itself though reason and science.

To
me this is a grand and awe-inspiring concept. I would even describe the
feelings that it inspires as mystical. Religion and superstition have no
monopoly upon such emotions. Those who have a basic understanding and
appreciation of the natural world and science often experience them.

Other
intelligent life in the Universe is not only possible but many believe probable.
However, unless and until we find it and prove that it does exist, there is a
chance that intelligence only happened here. Even if sentience does exist
elsewhere, it may be so different from our own version of consciousness that it
may be barley recognizable. There is a real chance that thinking and awareness
as we define it could be unique to Earth.

Viewed
through the prism of these ideas, it seems imperative that humanity continue to
exist and strive to understand and expand into the Cosmos. It is of the utmost
importance that we do so. We, who are the conscious part of the Universe, are
striving to understand our self! Premature
extinction of this sentience would therefore be catastrophic on a cosmological
level and extremely undesirable. I would argue our quest to know more about the
Infinitum adds nobility to the existence of the human race. We are not really
people striving to understand creation, we ARE creation beginning to comprehend
itself.

I grant
that there may be other reasons for us to go on as a species and civilization. However,
striving for the ultimate fulfillment of a self- aware Universe is the most
compelling argument on my list. At times I think that a similar premise can be
made relating to the human creation of art and philosophy. However I am not
certain that I am on such sure-footed territory on this concept. Perhaps I will
explore that idea further in coming blogs.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

I
very much enjoyed Gordon Wood’s Radicalism
and the American Revolution. This
book is not for every reader, however. I
would only recommend Wood’s work for those with a very serious interest in the
topics covered. These subjects include
the American Revolution, the history of government, as well as the social
changes that occurred in Western Civilization during the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. If one does have an abiding interest in these
areas, then Radicalism
and the American Revolutionis a must read.

Wood’s
book does not present a straightforward narrative; instead it provides facts,
statistics and a lot of quotations from the period of roughly 1750 to 1830. This information is woven together to produce
suppositions. These hypotheses are often
convincing and are always fascinating. The
entire basis of the work runs counter to the somewhat popular argument that the
American Revolution was not a revolution at all, but only a war for
independence. Wood also refutes the
contention that even if the American Revolution was a political revolution, it
was not a social revolution. The author
presents his case that during this era, America experienced massive political,
social, philosophical, demographic and economic changes that were comparable to
other great upheavals.

Wood
illustrates how this period in American history brought about enormous
alteration in the social structure and hierarchy that was ingrained into
American society. Most relationships,
starting with a the personal connections that many people perceived that they
had to the king, to local government, as well as to their own families, were
radically transformed. Society changed
from a structure of vertical, patriarchal connections to a system of horizontal
relationships and coalitions.

Additionally,
Wood points out how the American Revolutionary period brought about great
changes in government, demographics, and economics. Everything, from the way parents raised their
children to the way commerce was conducted, from the way Americans received and
evaluated information to even table manners, to name just a few points,
metamorphosed during this period.

All of
these changes that took place during the early 1800s produced an amazingly
dynamic, individualistic and egalitarian society that bubbled with ideas and
commerce. This society was unique in the
world and had a major impact on how the present day world came to be.

Wood
does point out that this dynamism and the advantages that it bestowed was
mostly restricted to white men. He does
address and explore the implications that these changes had on women, African–American
slaves and Native Americans. The author
does not shy away from enormous contradictions between this flowering of
liberty that benefitted some groups and the horrors of slavery and other evils
that were present at this time. He
attempts to explain how these vast incongruities could exist. He further explores what effect the revolution
had on various movements such as abolition and women’s rights.

Somewhat controversially, Wood contends that,
like most revolutions, the changes in America ran well beyond what its original
instigators ever intended. I will
further explore this point in more detail below. Thus, Wood contends that while not as violent
or mob driven as the French Revolution and other similar events, this American
experience was just as radical.

As
with many good books, there are too many ideas in Radicalism
and the American Revolutionto
comprehensively delve into within a single blog post. As I am fond of doing, I will concentrate upon
what was for me one of many fascinating points found in the book. This topic revolves around the political
theory and history of Classical Republicanism as interpreted by the
revolutionary generation. I need to
mention that I believe the ideology ascribed by Wood as “Classical
Republicanism” that was espoused by many of America’s founders is not entirely
congruous with the other historical characterizations of this ideology that I
have run into. I am confining my
discussion to Wood’s definition and interpretation here.

Classical
Republicanism, at least during this era, was premised on the preposition that
anyone who had strong “interest” in society, particularly economic interests,
was unfit to govern and lead. The self-interested individual would only
advocate for and support policies that were advantageous to that person and his
peers.

Instead,
government should be comprised of men who were “uninterested”. Such men would impartially judge among the
competing interests that existed in society. This leadership class should also be composed
of the best educated and the most virtuous citizens. Who could possibly meet these requirements? Many of the founders believed that such
headship should be drawn from a special group of the wealthy and elite.

This
group was comprised of men of propriety wealth. In theory, these rich landowners controlled
vast estates that provided a steady source of wealth and income that required
little management. These property owners,
numerous in Virginia but present in various forms in all of the states, were
considered to be independent of mercantile, speculative and other capitalistic
pursuits. Such economic disinterest would
put this class of men above any personal ambitions for profit and allow them to
be fair arbiters of society. Instead of
representing particular groups, these leaders would represent everyone. These men were also usually well educated and
considered by some to be the most honorable members of society. This new elite would replace the old
aristocracy and monarchy that was swept aside by the revolution.

Lest
one err in concluding that this dream of Classical Republicanism came to be in
an America that for much of its history has been dominated by moneyed
interests, the Classical Republicans did not believe that capitalists or
businessmen should ever be allowed to govern society. Contrary to the wealthy
estate holders who, it was supposed, did not need to do anything to assure
their income, citizens who were involved in mercantilism or speculation were
some of the most interested people around and were thus not trustworthy enough
for government service.

Many
of the Classical Republicans held an enormous distrust for the lower classes
and the dangers of mob rule, and were particularly opposed to universal male
suffrage. However, a social and
political structure led by uninterested men whose actions were exemplary and
beyond reproof would help to encourage virtue in all layers of society, and
thus help to pacify members of the lower classes. The behavior of the elite would be the model for
all classes. Hard work, frugality,
education and civility would be highly valued by everyone in such a nation.

To
some extent, Classical Republicanism government may have operated more or less
as intended during the administration of George Washington. Washington was in many ways the epitome of the
disinterested elite and virtuous republican. He was not only a wealthy land owner, but on
many occasions he honestly strived to rise above the fray and act the
disinterested leader who looked beyond parochial interests for what he believed
to be the good of all society.

Wood
argues that the formulation of the United States Constitution in 1787 was in
part an attempt by the Federalists, who championed the idea of Classical
Republicanism to defend and solidify their chosen system. The Constitution included such bastions of
Classical Republicanism as a Senate elected by state legislatures, a powerful
executive chosen not by the people but by electors, as well as Supreme Court
Justices who served for life. Wood points out that the Constitution failed to
enshrine this system as intended. Many history and government scholars and
buffs, including at times myself, have extoled the genius that the founders
showed in crafting this document. If we
accept Wood’s contention, at least in this respect, the Constitution was a
failure in the eyes of its creators!

Of
course, this version of Classical Republicanism was an interesting theory of
government that was based upon false premises. For one thing the American landed elite never
were so secure as to be able to disregard all capitalistic and speculative
pursuits. To the contrary, after the
war, these wealthy patricians found that they were falling deeper and deeper in
debt, and thus began to engage in financial speculation in order to supplement
income.

Another
major impediment to the success of this system was the fact that other powerful
groups, such as the mercantile interests and tradesmen, soon demanded their own
representation in the republic. This was
coupled by the tendency of lower economic classes to develop a desire for material
goods and luxuries. This acquisitiveness
in the population ran counter to the idea of the frugal, hard working and virtuous
citizen championed by the supporters of Classical Republicanism

Like
most and perhaps all revolutions, the American Revolution far outdistanced and
eventually buried the intentions and goals of the original revolutionaries. Though not a point made by Wood, I find it
ironic that when describing discredited political or economic systems, such as
communism, modern day commentators and historians use terms like ‘the dustbin
of history” and often express bemusement that anyone ever espoused such
ideologies. It turns out that many of
America’s founding icons, including George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and
John Adams, believed in and attempted to establish just as unworkable a system.

To
the dismay of many of the cherished founders, the idea of Classical
Republicanism gave way to what we call Liberal Democracy. This new, much more radical system, championed
by the anti–Federalists, acknowledged that society was full of competing
interests and there really was no group that was truly disinterested. Therefore
the best form of government contained legislatures composed of representatives
of various groups. Partisans would
coalesce around parties. The legislators
would be engaged in constant push and pull as well as compromise. The end result of this competitive process
would yield balanced governance.This is
the system what the modern democracies more or less still adhere to today.

Wood’s
argument that Classical Republicanism was a goal of many of America’s founders
that ultimately unraveled and gave way to more radical ideas is a convincing
one. I do however find a flaw in Wood’s
presentation. Often, Radicalism
and the American Revolutionpresents the conflict between the
Federalists who supported Classical Republicanism and the Anti–Federalists who
opposed it as too monolithic. The book
casts supporters and opponents as being without much nuance. My own understanding of the views and policies
of America’s founders includes all sorts of variations and contradictions on
this matter. For instance, Jefferson
epitomized and led the anti–Federalists, yet he championed the agrarian, landed
estate holders who were supposed to lead the Classical Republican society. Hamilton expressed enormous distrust of the
masses and mob rule, yet he advocated for the emerging mercantile class that
Classical Republicans would exclude from governance. Washington, the embodiment of a patrician
republican, was extremely pragmatic and never really believed that any group
was above partisanship and thus truly disinterested.

Though
in my opinion he pushes his point and portrays it a little too simplistically,
Wood is on to something when he describes this antiquated political theory and
how it quickly gave way to more revolutionary ideas. He presents a thoroughly researched, smart and
thought provoking study and analysis of this issue.

Wood’s
book is full of interesting ideas for those who are inclined to delve deeply
into these subjects. The examination of
the idea and history of Classical Republicanism in American is only one of many
avenues that he strides here. As someone
very interested in the history and ideology of this era, I enjoyed this book
immensely. This work is however, in the language of modern slang, wonky. I would only recommend Radicalism
and the American Revolutionto those who
are indeed very interested.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

**** Minor Spoilers contained here. I give away the fate of the main characters. I say that this is minor because it is
revealed a little more than halfway through this book anyway. ***

The Human Stain is another Philip
Roth book that I loved. Once again, this
is a story that is part of the Zuckerman series and, like the previous two
entries, Zuckerman mostly narrates and interprets the tale. He is only a character
of moderate importance in this book.

Roth and Zuckerman tell
the story of Coleman Silk. Silk is an
African-American who grows up in New Jersey during the 1930’s and 1940’s. Silk is a strong willed, brilliant student as
well a talented boxer. Encountering only
occasional racism in his very early years, he is shocked by the hardcore ethnic
bigotry that he confronts when he first attends college in Washington D.C. Intending
to live life his way, Coleman, who is very light skinned and possesses many
Caucasian features, simply decides to pass himself off as a white man. After serving in World War II, Silk returns to
civilian life and meets Steena Paulsson, who seems destined to become his wife.
Coleman hides, or at least does not reveal, his ethnicity to Steena for several
years. When he finally surprises her
with a visit to his family, providing her with no foreknowledge that they are
African-American, Steena flees from Silk. After this incident our protagonist cruelly
severs ties with his family and completely takes on the identity of a Jewish-American.

Silk later marries
another white woman and has children, but never reveals to his family his true
past or ethnic background. Professionally
he becomes a Professor of Classic Literature and rises to the position of Dean
of the fictional Athena College. As a dynamic reformer, he puts Athena on the
academic map. Along the way he makes numerous
enemies as he eliminates the dead wood and non-working members of the faculty of
the college.

In his seventies and
upon retirement from the position of Dean, Silk decides to stay around and continue
to teach a few undergraduate courses. In
an ironic twist of fate, one day while taking attendance in class he casually
refers to a couple of students, who have never shown up to class and are just
names on the attendance list, as “Spooks”. It turns out that the students in question are
African-Americans. A firestorm erupts as
Silk is accused of making a racist statement. His friends abandon him as his enemies descend
upon him and he later resigns in fury. Afterward,
he blames the ensuing death of his wife on the scandal.

The heart of the book
concerns itself with events that occur several years after the above events. Silk meets Nathan Zuckerman, whom he implores
to write the story of his persecution. He also begins an affair with Faunia
Farley, a woman less than half his age who has been abused throughout her life
and who is apparently illiterate. Members
of the local community as well as Silk’s children condemn the relationship as
inappropriate. The lovers are hounded by
Lester Farley, who is Fauna’s abusive and psychotic ex-husband, as well as by Professor
Delphine Roux, a self-righteous professor at Athena College. Lester Farley eventually murders both Coleman
and Fauna. I am not really giving anything away, as the events of Coleman’s
death are mentioned relatively early the novel, whose timeline is only
partially linear. Next, Zuckerman
proceeds to piece together the story of Coleman’s life and demise. The last months of Coleman’s life take place
concurrently over the backdrop of the Bill Clinton–Monica Lewinsky scandal,
which is referenced again and again.

The Human Stain is a work of great thematic and philosophic
complexity. Multiple strains of ideas run
concurrently and are intertwined. As is
true of every other Roth novel that I have read, the issue of identity and its
shifting permutations dominate the narrative. The idea of an African-American taking on the
ethnicity of a Jewish-American, and eventually being persecuted for being a racist,
is prime material for these explorations. Since I explored this multi–novel train of thinking
in my commentary on Roth’s “I Married a
Communist”, I will instead focus here on another
related aspect of this novel, what Roth calls the “Ecstasy of Sanctimony”.

Roth takes humanity
to task for our tendency to judge and attack individuals for personal behavior
that is not really the business of the public, is ultimately trivial and
sometimes accompanied by gross mistruths.

As mentioned earlier,
the Clinton sex scandal and subsequent impeachment plays prominently in the words
and thoughts of the book’s characters. Pondering
the events, Zuckerman points to the incongruity of the fanatical piety that
many people were projecting over both Clinton’s and Silk’s liaisons, while
paying minimal attention to a twentieth century world full of suffering, war,
genocide and insane ideologies. Zuckerman
deplores this unsophisticated and small-minded tendency of certain Americans to
obsess over such trivialities and ignore what is truly momentous in the world. He compares such reactions to the Muslim extremists
who supported the Fatwa by calling for the murder of Salmon Rushdie. Roth ties such thinking to a strong anti – intellectualism
and racism prevalent in America. Many of
the characters who express disgust with both Clinton’s and Silk’s sexual activities
accompany the comments with anti–education, racist and anti–Semitic comments.

This is a train of reasoning
that I must admit appeals to me. I am often
appalled by what seems to me the simplistic phony righteousness expressed by
some of my fellow Americans. I remember distinctly
the discussions that I engaged in with self-described pious persons during the
self same scandal. One needs only to
listen to the ridiculous and hateful rhetoric engaged by many of our current
politicians and commentators speaking against access to birth control to
understand what I mean.

Just when you think,
however, that Roth is going to confine his point to the puritanical anti-
intellectual thinking that a segment of America engages in, he throws us a curveball.
He proceeds to aim his sights on the over intellectualized and often politically
correct thinking left wing.

Professor
Delphine Roux is the diametric opposite of the American anti-intellectual. She is a young, attractive, stylish and
sophisticated French woman descended from aristocracy who can be described as a
super intellectual. Educated in the
finest French schools and possessing a brilliant mind, Roux has mastered the
intricacies of complex literary theories that few of her colleagues even
understand. She has awed her peers and
students with her cerebral prowess and engaging charisma. She describes herself as living for books and
for art. At twenty- nine years of age she
rises to become chairperson of the language and literature department at Athena
College.

Roux
is, however, emotionally immature and unstable. She leads a hysterical sanctimonious attack
against Silk, first for the innocent “Spooks” comment and later for what she
incorrectly imagines to be an abusive and misogynic affair. Even after Silk’s death she continues to pile
on the slander. Here, Roth presents us
with self-righteous attacks from a different source altogether. Like the assault on Clinton, real truth
concerning private human weakness, is combined with outrageous lies that
further smear the victim.

Though
Roth clearly despises the excesses epitomized by Roux, from what I know of him,
he is intellectually, socially and politely much closer to the intellectualized
international literary left that is occupied by Roux. To Roth’s credit, he has turned his literary
glare close to home.

Faunia
Farley is the true opposite of the reprehensible people who engage in the
vicious moralizing. She condemns no one.
In one passage, she seems to see that
human imperfection, or “the Human Stain,” as all pervasive and simply accepts
it as part of the world. Later
Zuckerman, writing in Silk’s voice (yes, perception and point of view get
really complicated with Roth!) describes her,

“She's
not religious, she's not sanctimonious, she is not deformed by the fairy tale
of purity, whatever other perversions may have disfigured her. She's not
interested in judging—she's seen too much for all that shit. “

Raped
and abused all of her life, and in the end murdered, for me Faunia Farley is
the noblest and most admirable person in this story.

This
tale made me think about a book that I read a few months ago, Nancy Issenberg’s
Fallen
Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr . This work details the
life of America’s third vice president, who Issenberg contends was the victim
of outrageous lies and character distortions that continue to be perpetuated to
this day. My commentary on that book is here.

My
thoughts here only represent a small fraction of what a reader will get out of
this book. There is so much that I have not even mentioned. Aside from a great story and characters, Roth
weaves a tale that is a thinking person’s delight. Since once again Zuckerman is only
interpreting a story, a reader unfamiliar with the other works in the series
can jump right in. This is a great work, though not quite as great as the incomparable
American Pastoral.

I
have one last Zuckerman book to go. That
is Exit Ghost. I believe that the main narrative returns to
Zuckerman’s life and, I fear sadly, his death. I will get to that one soon and share my
thoughts with everyone.